- Query in any language with multilingual search
- Access EUR-Lex and EU Commission case law
- See relevant paragraphs highlighted instantly
Similar Documents
Explore similar documents to your case.We Found Similar Cases for You
Case T-455/12: Action brought on 12 October 2012 — Zoo Sport v OHIM — K-2 (zoo sport)
ECLI:EU:UNKNOWN:62012TN0455
62012TN0455
With us you find everything. Try it now!
I imagine what I want to write in my case, I write it in the search engine and I get exactly what I wanted. Thank you!
Valentina R., lawyer
22.12.2012
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 399/25
(Case T-455/12)
2012/C 399/48
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Zoo Sport Ltd (Leeds, United Kingdom) (represented by: I. Rungg, lawyer)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: K-2 Corp. (Seattle, United States)
Form of order sought
The applicant claims that the Court should:
—Vary the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 9 August 2012 in case R 1395/2011-4, so as to reject the opposition in its entirety; and
—Order the defendant to bear the costs of the proceedings.
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark in black and white ‘zoo sport’, for goods and services in classes 18, 25 and 35 — Community trade mark application No 8909293
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal
Mark or sign cited in opposition: Community trade mark registration No 5233119 for the word mark ‘ZOOT’, for goods in classes 9 and 25; Community trade mark registration No 4719316 for the figurative mark in black and white ‘SPORTS ZOOT SPORTS’, for goods and services in classes 25, 35, 36 and 41
Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition for part of the contested goods and services
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Partially annulled the contested decision
Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(b) of Council Regulation No 207/2009.